Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jones

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McCLELLAN, J.
• Citation: Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jones, 14 So. 114, 100 Ala. 263 (Ala. 1893)
• Decision Date: 30 November 1893
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. JONES.

14 So. 114

100 Ala. 263

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 30, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James J. Banks, Judge.

Action by Thomas Jones against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for damages for a breach of duty, growing out of a contract entered into by plaintiff and defendant, as a common carrier. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

The breach of duty complained of was for the breaking of a stove which the defendant railroad, as common carrier, had contracted to carry to a point of destination beyond its line, a station on the Georgia Pacific Railroad, the connecting line. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a special plea, setting up that its liability ceased, under its contract with the plaintiff, when it had delivered safely the stove to the connecting carrier, and that it had so delivered the stove. Issue was joined on these pleas. The other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The cause was tried without the intervention of a jury, and upon the hearing of the evidence the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff.

Hewitt Walker & Porter, for appellant.

W. K Terry, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Where goods are delivered to a common carrier for transportation to a point beyond its own line, under a through bill of lading which, however, contains a stipulation exempting the receiving carrier from liability for loss or damage occurring beyond its own terminal, and the goods are not delivered to the consignee at all, the presumption of law is that they were lost by the receiving carrier, and he will be liable unless he can show that the consignment was safely delivered to the connecting carrier. The burden is on him, in such case; and plaintiff, having shown nondelivery by the discharging carrier, is entitled to recover without more. Railway Co. v. Hughart, 90 Ala. 36, 8 So. 62, and cases cited. On the other hand, where, upon such shipment and bill of lading, the goods have been delivered by the connecting or final carrier to the consignee, or have been carried to the place of consignment for delivery, and are then in a damaged condition, the presumption of law is that they were delivered by the receiving to the connecting carrier in good condition, and that the damage occurred while they were in the possession of the delivering carrier; and therefore, in an action...